The 1st try was reverted because it could inf-loop by creating a dead instruction.
Fixed that to not happen and added a test case to verify.
Original commit message:
Try to fold:
memcmp(X, C, ConstantLength) == 0 --> load X == *C
Without this change, we're unnecessarily checking the alignment of the constant data,
so we miss the transform in the first 2 tests in the patch.
I noted this shortcoming of LibCallSimpifier in one of the recent CGP memcmp expansion
patches. This doesn't help the example in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34032#c13
...directly, but it's worth short-circuiting more of these simple cases since we're
already trying to do that.
The benefit of transforming to load+cmp is that existing IR analysis/transforms may
further simplify that code. For example, if the load of the variable is common to
multiple memcmp calls, CSE can remove the duplicate instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36922
llvm-svn: 311366
This is the baseline (current) version of the tests that would
have been added with the transform in r311333 (reverted at
r311340 due to inf-looping).
Adding these now to aid in testing and minimize the patch if/when
it is reinstated.
llvm-svn: 311350
Try to fold:
memcmp(X, C, ConstantLength) == 0 --> load X == *C
Without this change, we're unnecessarily checking the alignment of the constant data,
so we miss the transform in the first 2 tests in the patch.
I noted this shortcoming of LibCallSimpifier in one of the recent CGP memcmp expansion
patches. This doesn't help the example in:
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34032#c13
...directly, but it's worth short-circuiting more of these simple cases since we're
already trying to do that.
The benefit of transforming to load+cmp is that existing IR analysis/transforms may
further simplify that code. For example, if the load of the variable is common to
multiple memcmp calls, CSE can remove the duplicate instructions.
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D36922
llvm-svn: 311333
Sanjay Patel